January 2012 marks the 11th annual National Mentoring Month. Among youth, mentoring programs such as Big Brothers, Big Sisters has led to lower drug use rates, better school attendance, and improved self-esteem. Having a mentor beyond one’s teens and during their education and professional development are important as well.  The American Psychological Association notes that female graduate students need mentors, and research shows that female graduate students rank having a female mentor is highly important for their professional development. Female students who had female mentors noted that these mentors saw them as their whole person, not solely as students, and focused on prioritizing one’s values.  A recent LinkedIn poll showed that 82% of women feel that having a mentor is important, and unfortunately, roughly 20% of professional women have never had a mentor. Only 34% of female Baby Boomers had a female mentor during their professional career while numbers have improved for GenXers (43%) and GenYers (51%).

Women throughout history and throughout the world have benefited from having female mentors who have helped them develop their careers and maintain their desired work-personal life balance. The first female British Prime Minister and current subject of a major film, Margaret Thatcher, was the beneficiary of female mentors throughout her professional and political career. Although Thatcher spent much of her career in politics, Margaret Thatcher (then Margaret Roberts) received her college degree in chemistry and spent three years working in a research laboratory in her early twenties.  Roberts pursued this field of study because of the influence of her chemistry teacher Miss Kay of whom biographers note that Thatcher was “inspired by [her] teaching excellence.”  During her study at Oxford, she studied under Dorothy Hodgkin, who was responsible for a great deal of the advance of X-Ray crystallography, which enables scientists to see 3-D images of molecules. Hodgkin would later win the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1964. Margaret Roberts research dissertation focused on determining the structure of gramicidin, a bacterial derived compound that was found to have antibiotic. Roberts’s research was guided by Dororthy Hodgkin, who in addition to winning the Nobel prize was seen as instrumental in shaping the science policies  that implemented Prime Minister Thatcher more than thirty years later.

After her schooling, she spent a few years working as a chemist for a plastics company, but ultimately, her interests and passions led Margaret Thatcher to pursue a career in politics and a degree in law. She would marry Denis Thatcher in 1951 following her electoral loss  of a parliamentary seat. In 1953, Thatcher had twins, and she continued to pursue a career in politics, winning a seat in parliament in 1959. In her memoir, The Path to Power, recounting her life prior to being Prime Minister Thatcher notes the early influence of a fellow female member of parliament, Irene about balancing one’s personal and professional life, especially during a time in even Western history when women’s participation outside of the home was not always met warmly:

The pull of a mother towards her children is perhaps the most instinctive emotion we have. I was never one of people who regarded being ‘just’ a mother or indeed ‘just’ a housewife as second best. Indeed, whenever I heard such implicit assumptions made before and after I became Prime Minister it would make me very angry indeed.  Of course to be a mother and a housewife is a vocation of a very high kind. But I simply felt that it was not the whole of my career. A phrase that Irene Ward, MP for Tynemouth, and I often used was that ‘while the home must always be the centre of one’s life,it should not be the boundary of one’s ambitions.’

Thatcher was able to pursue personal ambitions while at the same time making her family the focus of her life due in part to the fact that she had a fellow female MP who had blazed the trail already. Irene Ward served in parliament from 1931-1945 and again from 1950 to 1974 and was a strong supporter of equal pay for women as well. Margaret Thatcher had yet another mentor in her life in Irene Ward.

Throughout Margaret Thatcher’s career, she was influenced by successful women in her life–whether it was a teacher who helped her find her academic interests, a brilliant professor who influenced her far beyond her scientific career, or a colleague who understood the need to balance one’s family and career.  The aforementioned LinkedIn poll noted that 67% of women have never been a mentor because no one has ever asked, and 52% of women have never pursued a mentor because they haven’t found someone appropriate for them. If we have opportunity and are in the right season of our careers and lives to be a mentor, the example of Margaret Thatcher, among many others, can serve to show how strong female examples can help support and encourage women in their professional careers. If we are in the nascence of our professional career, pursuing mentoring opportunities can prove to be fruitful. Assertiveness and diligence can indeed help set us apart. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.”

Over the last two weeks, as Newt Gingrich’s nomination prospects have been falling, voters’ dissatisfaction has been rising, and it has become clear that the presidential contest will likely be between incumbent President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, an amazing thing has been happening.

Three women have been rising in the presidential field. Two are not even running.

Both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin are the subjects of media speculations and draft efforts from former supporters (see: Clinton, Clinton, Palin, and Palin). While neither Clinton nor Palin appears interested in joining the 2012 presidential fray, the desire for them to jump into the race seems to be more than what the Los Angeles Times deemed “the silly season” at work. Even though many – especially negative – presidential campaigns include moments of buyers’ remorse, it isn’t often that Americans have hoped their knight in shining armor would be a woman.

Perhaps it’s because, as the Barbara Lee Family Foundation’s research from the 2010 gubernatorial races found, “More than ever, gender has the potential to become a strategic asset for women running for executive office.” Maybe it’s because women in traditionally male dominated arenas like politics and sports are earning rave reviews (Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Women’s Soccer sensation Abby Wambach).

Or maybe it’s because both Clinton and Palin are fighting “good fights,” standing up for Americans in Washington and women around the world. They’re using their voices to take on the powerful and support the underdogs. Who doesn’t want more in their positions to show that kind of courage and leadership?

Whatever the cause of these presidential wishes, the trend appears to be helping Representative Michele Bachmann in Iowa. After having won the Ames Straw Poll in August, breaking that state’s glass ceiling, Bachmann is again on the upswing. And Gingrich’s patronizing treatment of her seems more likely to backfire on him than hurt her in the Hawkeye State on January 3rd.

Should Bachmann best Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Senator Rick Santorum, landing her in fourth place (or third, if Gingrich slips more) behind Romney, Representative Ron Paul, and Gingrich, she’d instantly become the surprise story out of Iowa, and in turn become Romney’s most serious competition in South Carolina. Even though she may not prevail against Mitt’s money and organization, Michele will have shown again that women not only deserve to be in presidential contests, but that they can be tough competitors. This is miles away from five years ago, before Clinton and Palin made their marks on the 2008 race. And it’s something to celebrate as we roll in another election year!

For those not in the know, Linda Katehi is the Chancellor of UC Davis, where a viral video of police pepper-spraying sitting protesters was filmed on Friday, November 19th. Here’s the film, for those who haven’t seen it.

This incident started when alleged police brutality erupted on the UC Berkeley campus, where another viral video was filmed, when students attempted to occupy the campus with tents in protest of tuition and fee increases.

This film showed police officers using batons to beat back a crowd. UC Davis students then decided to protest in solidarity with students at UC Berkeley. Like Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau of UC Berkeley, Chancellor Katehi asked for police help in dispersing the students and preventing them from erecting tents on campus property. There is no evidence that either Chancellor coordinated with police about how to police the situations.

Here’s the video from UC Berkeley:

The reactions of both Chancellors have been somewhat similar. Both initially expressed support for the police. Both later apologized to the students and faculty. And both eventually called for an internal investigation. However, Chancellor Katehi has gone even further, meeting with students and faculty, and suspending the UC Davis Chief of Police. The only person currently facing suspension at UC Berkeley is a student protester.

In addition to the issue of police brutality, what matters here is that the treatment these two Chancellors have received in the aftermath of the incidents has been quite different, creating a double-standard, and suggesting that sexism is in play. While the students and faculty of UC Berkeley have called for an “independent investigation” of the university’s actions, they have not asked for the resignation of Chancellor Birgeneau. However, a movement begun via a letter penned by a white, male faculty member of UC Davis, Nathan Brown, has been calling for the resignation of Chancellor Katehi. This movement has started a petition with almost 80,000 signatures, and they are are now working to force her ouster. Here’s the opening of Professor Brown’s letter (full letter at the petition):

Linda P.B. Katehi,

I am a junior faculty member at UC Davis. I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, and I teach in the Program in Critical Theory and in Science & Technology Studies. I have a strong record of research, teaching, and service. I am currently a Board Member of the Davis Faculty Association. I have also taken an active role in supporting the student movement to defend public education on our campus and throughout the UC system. In a word: I am the sort of young faculty member, like many of my colleagues, this campus needs. I am an asset to the University of California at Davis.

You are not.

There’s so much tell all over this letter, and what it tells of is a blatant disrespect for women in positions of authority, and a lot of privileged arrogance on the part of this professor. From the very beginning, by refusing to use her title he is showing his disrespect. But let’s just dispense with the most obvious fact first: that universities do not need more white male professors; they need more women of all races, especially in positions of power. The letter and the volumes of internet articles about Katehi have in no way proven that she is directly responsible for the actions of police, or even knew what they would be in advance. Katehi, like Birgeneau, is “guilty” of merely asking for police assistance. One immediately wonders why Professor Brown doesn’t also target Chancellor Birgeneau, on whose campus physical violence in the form of several batons was wielded.

Some facts about women in academics: Women have addressed the old “pipe-line” defense of male domination on college campuses, but that hasn’t solved the problem of barriers to women in leadership positions. There’s still a glass ceiling in academics. As usual, it’s the statistics (PDF) that tell the story:

A recent study by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) piques interest in the current role of women in higher education. The examination of 1,445 colleges and universities reveals that while women earn more than half of all Ph.D. degrees granted to American citizens today, they still comprise only about 45% of tenure-track faculty, 31% of tenured faculty, and just 24% of full professorships in 2005-2006 (West and Curtis 2006). More women than men are in part-time or non-tenure track positions, and the increasing scarcity of women as you look at higher academic ranks is clearly shown. Participation of women is lowest in the doctoral-granting institutions, where women constitute just 34% of full-time faculty, 26% of tenured faculty, and 19% of full professors.

…

While representation of women at higher professorial ranks is disappointing, women are even more scarce on the administrative career ladder. Relatively few women advance to top academic leadership positions such as dean, provost, president or chancellor. An exception is in traditionally female fields such as nursing and education (Dugger 2001a), yet many social science and professional fields have shown substantial gender desegregation and an increasing supply of women for these positions. Where women are in top positions, it is typically in smaller, less prestigious schools. With women over-represented at instructor/lecturer ranks and less likely (controlling for experience, publications, and educational attainment) and taking longer to reach the associate and full professor ranks (Dugger 2001b) which generally are tapped for leadership positions, the small number of women administrators is yet another piece of the problem.

Some fair questions: Is being pepper-sprayed worse than being physically beaten? Worse than the scenes of professors and student being dragged off by their hair, as happened at UC Berkeley? Why is Chancellor Katehi being singled out amidst of sea of male figures of authority who have called for police assistance in dealing with the protests, including a male Chancellor and several male mayors? So far the biggest targets for Occupiers’ complaints about official reaction to their protests have been Chancellor Katehi and Mayor Jean Quan, of Oakland. Why? And what does it tell us about the nature of the protests?

There have been lots of reports of Occupy Wall Street’s “woman problem.” The issues range from male domination of General Assemblies, sexist rhetoric and treatment, and the physical safety of women at the camps. Apparently, you can add problems with female authority figures to the list. Let’s hope this obvious witch-hunt is unsuccessful.

Backroom deals and crony capitalism have become a pervasive part of Washington D.C. and throughout governments at all levels. Politicians have far too often acted as self-servants rather than public servants. Actions, like engaging in insider trading which is illegal for the average Americans, are perfectly legal for members of Congress. While such actions have become commonplace, little has been done to effectively root out these unethical practices in Washington and beyond. There are two women –one a Republican and one a Democrat—who are drawing attention to the corrupt practices of Congress and proposing solid reforms to help clean up Washington.

In September, former Republican Alaska Governor Sarah Palin gave a speech that transcended party lines where she focused in part on the crony capitalism of Washington and the self-serving behaviors of “permanent political class”:

Yeah, the permanent political class – they’re doing just fine. Ever notice how so many of them arrive in Washington, D.C. of modest means and then miraculously throughout the years they end up becoming very, very wealthy? Well, it’s because they derive power and their wealth from their access to our money – to taxpayer dollars. They use it to bail out their friends on Wall Street and their corporate cronies, and to reward campaign contributors, and to buy votes via earmarks. There is so much waste. And there is a name for this: It’s called corporate crony capitalism. This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners – the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70% of the jobs in America, it’s you who own these small businesses, you’re the economic engine, but you don’t grease the wheels of government power.

Image from Politico, November 18, 2011

Concurrent with the Solyndra scandal, where the Obama administration gave a government loan to an Obama donor connected company that later went bankrupt, Governor Palin effectively articulated a large part of the frustration that the American people have with the disconnect between Washington and the American people.

What allowed Governor Palin’s message to resonate so strongly was that she practiced what she preached when it comes to ethical government and the inappropriate relationships between government and business. As Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin focused on government reform and transparency. She turned away campaign donations where there was a potential for a conflict of interest. She did not allow lobbyists in her office. Governor Palin also championed an ethics reform bill that tightened restrictions on lobbyists, campaign donations and the revolving door between government and lobbying. She put the state checkbook online so that her constituents could see where every dollar of taxpayer money was being spent. Her fight against corruption was not only in rhetoric, but in action.

“Crony capitalism” has become part of the American vernacular over these past few months, and the concerns with such practices in Washington continued following a recent 60 Minutes segment that highlighted the findings in a book, Throw Them All Out, by Palin adviser Peter Schweizer. One area of cronyism and self-dealing that Peter Schweizer highlighted was Congress’ ability to engage in insider trading without any legal repercussions. While not illegal, such practices are unethical and plague both parties from Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to the ranking Republican on the House Finance Committee Spencer Bachus. Schweizer’s book charges that both of these House members among others engaged in insider trading (that is illegal for the rest of us) to fill their own bank accounts based upon their inside information as legislators.

Such news has led some members of Congress to propose legislation to make insider trading illegal. One of these individual sponsoring such legislation is Democratic New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand:

Senator Gillibrand’s bill would make insider trading by Congress illegal and allow the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to prosecute any members of the House or Senate engaging in such practices. Like Governor Palin, Senator Gillibrand has a record to back up her call for a more ethical Washington D.C.. As a member of the House, then Congresswoman Gillibrand listed her daily schedule, including what lobbyists or campaign donors she met with, and shared both her earmark requests and her personal financial statement as a means of transparency in government. She also is a strong advocate for Wall Street and campaign finance reform. Senator Gillibrand’s current proposal of reform is indicative of the transparency she has made part of her public service throughout her time in Washington D.C.

Although not currently an office holder or candidate, Governor Palin also proposed a series of Congressional reforms in a recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal:

What are the solutions? We need reform that provides real transparency. Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.

We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren’t really blind because they’re managed by family members or friends.)

No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.

There was a time when women’s roles were relegated to only cleaning house. Now, women are striving to clean House (and Senate) of crony capitalism and unethical behavior. This is not an issue of right and left, as women of both parties have addressed the need for government reform. It is an issue of right and wrong, and it transcends party politics. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of engaging in unethical and self serving behaviors, and women of both parties are making it a goal to reform government and make it more transparent. In a time where America is divided on so many issues, these two women are using their individual influence to propose changes that all Americans can agree on. It would serve our nation well if other female (and male) politicians follow the bipartisan lead of Governor Palin and Senator Gillibrand.

“…he [suggested] that after the horrendous sexual assault of a CBS News reporter, we should send Hasselbeck to Egypt.”

Though Hasselbeck is the token conservative on the show, I found it horrific that her sister cast members would not make any kind of a stand against this kind of despicable and violent rhetoric, whether or not these other women agreed with her politics. Maher basically suggested that Hasselbeck, because of her conservative political views, should be sent to Egypt to be gang raped.

I had been a Democrat my entire life, but was likewise horrified when comedian Sandra Bernhard threatened Sarah Palin with gang rape in 2008 “if she dared set foot in Manhattan.” This is not about politics. This is about decency.

Maher, not surprisingly, hid behind the veil of “I’m a comedian” i.e, ‘relax, ladies, it’s only a joke.’

If a shock jock and hate monger misogynist like Maher face ever faced even the threat of the ills he wishes upon women, he might change his self righteous posture. I highly recommend watching this video if only to see his defensiveness, cowardice and unwillingness to apologize for something that clearly crossed the line.

What is even more grotesque is that the rest of the women on this show, knowing how much violence women face in this country and around the world daily, either sat in silence or did their best to try to smooth over the awkward moment and make Maher feel comfortable – as if Hasselbeck was being unreasonable.

Barbara Walter goes so far as to offer that she had to “endure” being called “Baba Wawa” her entire career, as if that compares to wishing unspeakable and horrible violence upon a woman. Shame on her for acting like a protective “mommy.” This is why overgrown spoiled children like Maher continue to practice this kind of behavior, while a network TV show holds up “Applause” screens to egg this on.

For the first time in the county’s history a woman was elected as county District Attorney, Democrat Sandra Doorley, and a woman won a historic third-term as County Executive, Republican Maggie Brooks.

Now the top three positions for the county are held by women (the County Clerk is Republican Cheryl Dinolfo).  Across the board on the ballots across the city of Rochester and the county, women from both parties had the momentum.

It was reported in the Democrat and Chronicle yesterday that the promotion of female candidates was a “bipartisan affair” locally.  The Democrats ran Brighton Town Supervisor Sandra Frankel against Maggie Brooks for County Executive, and many races across the county the women were the stronger, more favorable candidates.  The statistics from the D&C are as follows:

• Three of Monroe County’s four countywide offices, outside of the judiciary, will be held by women as of January: Brooks, Doorley and County Clerk Cheryl Dinolfo.  (Sheriff Patrick O’Flynn is the fourth.)
• Three of the four members of the House of Representatives delegation are women.
• Six of the nine members of City Council are women, including its president, Democrat Lovely Warren.
• Democrat Mary Adams was elected to the city school board, increasing the number of women on the seven-member board from three to four.
• In the Monroe County Legislature, Republican Karla Boyce won in Mendon on Tuesday, bringing the number of women to five on the 29-member board.

This past race is one more example that women can and do win political races.  If Susan B. Anthony could comment on what transpired on Tuesday, I would bet she would applaud all of the women who ran and encourage both parties to include more female candidates more often.  When more women run, more women win.

Uniformed US Army Nurse Corps, US Navy Nurse Corps, Women Assigned to Voluntary Emergency Services (WAVES), and Women's Army Auxiliary Corps.

Back in 2008, when Hillary Clinton was running for president, I came across an old black and white pictorial on American women from the late 1940′s at a used book fundraiser. Since I was feeling more than a little dispirited over the fate of women at the time, I bought the book hoping for inspiration from the “Rosie the riveter” generation of women. I was also, I must confess, intrigued by the title:

“Women Are Here to Stay: The Durable Sex in its Infinite Variety Through Half a Century of American Life”

The author, Agnes Rogers (Allen), denies creating a catalog of womanly accomplishments in her introduction:

“It is my intention to demonstrate that there are a great many different kinds of women…and that it is almost impossible to generalize about them – tempting though it might be…I am not trying to summarize ‘women’s accomplishments,’ since that seems to imply that women have a life of their own apart from the rest of the body politic.”

And yet it is hard not to come away with the impression that the author was, at least subtextually, reassuring women of the validity of their achievements through the book’s title, while staking a claim on as much territory gained by women in the arts, sciences, sports, military, business and politics as possible with the photographic documentation in her book. After all, why wouldn’t women be here to stay? And was our durability really in question, when even then women lived longer than men on average?

Most tellingly, “Women Are Here To Stay” was published during an unusual period in American history for women. By the end of World War II, for the first time, a large portion of middle and upper class women had experienced at least temporary employment outside the home and many in previously traditional male jobs. Working for pay was nothing new for poor women, of course. They had always worked outside the home, usually starting at a young age, whenever the need to support themselves and their families arose.

Employment, though, proved to be a difficult transition for many leisure class women. Not only had the demands of the times and needs of their family, society and the nation required that they rise to the occasion and go to work. But then, having learned to flex their muscle and harness their intelligence, creativity and endurance in support of their nation’s war efforts and their families survival during the Great Depression, they were forced back to the narrow confines of tending hearth and family when service men returned home following WWII.

But that new found knowledge of their own capabilities along with the sudden loss of freedom left these women with an increasing restlessness to produce something other than just off-spring.

Detroit policewomen 1942

“As job-holder, salary-earner, wage-earner, woman has definitely arrived. In 1900, there were only a little over 5 million ‘gainfully employed’ women in the United States (of whom about one in seven was married); by 1946 the number had swelled to over 16 million (of whom something like a third were married). Not only is it virtually taken for granted today that even the daughter of the rich, on graduating from college, will take a job — until she marries…”

And if she didn’t marry?

Ms. Rogers quotes The Ladies’ Home Journal (Sept. 1916):

” …the ambition of every girl who goes into business as a stenographer — provided she has a goal and does not merely regard her position as a means of filling the interim between school and matrimony — is to be come a private secretary… it is about the most agreeable and lucrative kind of position one can hold…”

Sadly, becoming a private secretary was still considered a high level business career path for women in the 1960′s and 1970′s, decades after women had achieved laudable heights in many areas of sports, arts, business and science.

Strangely, the political arena has always gotten short shrift from American women. Even in 1949, a mere twenty-nine years after American women were granted the right to vote in all national and state elections with the ratification of the 19th amendment, women were struggling to come to terms with the expectations and promise of their vote.

As the author complains:

“The suffrage victory failed to infuse American politics with a new righteousness, as many ardent suffrage orators, in their conviction that women were morally superior to men, had predicted it would. Nor, for that matter, has there ever been such a thing as ‘the woman’s vote.’ But it was an essential step toward complete recognition that women were people, with all the rights and responsibilities thereof. It failed to fill the country with swarms of professional women politicians, as others had foretold…”

How had such a hard-fought decades long battle for suffrage wrought so little in the political arena? Why hadn’t a swarm of professional women politicians filled the country? What went wrong then? And why has it remained virtually unchanged in the last 60 years? Did we women have greater fortitude then? Unity? Perseverance? Maybe not as a voting block, but in our determination to make changes?

How can it be that ninety-one years after women got the right to vote in the United States we still have seen no woman in the office of President or Vice-President of the United States? No where near equal representation of women in Congress or the judiciary. No equal opportunity for women at the highest levels of business.

Ms Rogers didn’t offer any answers in “Women Are Here To Stay” as to what went wrong politically for women. And such was my mood in 2008 and 2009 as first Hillary Clinton then Sarah Palin were mercilessly attacked and vilified (along with their supports) in such misogynistic terms for daring to reach for that highest level in American politics — the White House, that all the other areas of womanly achievement left me with cold comfort.

But strangely enough a recent headline gave me a glimmer hope and got me thinking that Ms. Rogers may have been right to boldly remind everyone of the seemingly obvious. We are not going to slip quietly back into the shadows. ”Women Are Here To Stay!” And this proves it.

Royal succession gender equality approved by Commonwealth: Leaders of 16 nations agree change to allow eldest child to become monarch irrespective of sex

When nations representing 30% of the world’s population, the likes of Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Belize, St. Christopher and Nevis, St. Lucia, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Papua New Guinea, come to realize that the dictates of tradition just don’t cut it any more. And that putting women in equal positions of power and leadership is not just morally right, but a way to strengthen and empower their nation…

And when those nations are willing to amend the 1701 Act of Settlement, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the Royal Marriages Act 1772 to give women equal opportunity…

It is the ultimate recognition that women are, indeed, here to stay and will no longer be held “apart from the rest of the body politic.”

So even though we American women face another presidential election with only one woman candidate running for election and history of equality that has been uneven at best over the last ninety-one years…

Even as the push back of women to traditional roles has begun to build with worries that girls are doing better and graduating in greater numbers than boys…that men are losing jobs at a faster rate than women…that the decline of marriage has strengthen women and weaken men…

And even while legislation in several states is seeking to diminish the personhood of women …

I take heart that the coming decade will be a challenging one. Because I am betting on the staying power, durability, versatility, adaptability and perseverance of women. And I think the smart money is betting on us too!

Yes, we women are here to stay!

"Sharon Bialek speaks during a news conference accusing Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain of sexual harassment in New York, November 7, 2011." (Reuters/Yahoo)

“Because I could”, said Bill Clinton about Monica. It’s doubtful that truer words have been spoken on the subject of how some men in positions of power behave around women.

In some cases the “could” is a one-way sexual attraction involving offensive and brutish behavior (Cain pulling Ms. Bialek’s “head towards his crotch” or Clinton dropping his pants before Ms. Jones).

These lewd acts terrify most women because although most men retreat upon hearing “no” (as both Cain and Clinton did), the heightened level of raw aggression suggests to many women the very real possibility of soon becoming a victim of sexual assault.

In some cases the “could” is a two-way sexual attraction where puffed up men view themselves as rock stars and adoring, often inappropriately young women swoon like groupies (Gingrich and Ms. Bisek, now Mrs. Gingrich, “a former congressional aide who was in her 20s when” the affair began or Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky, “an ebullient, vulnerable ‘child’ infatuated with a president” or Edwards and Ms. Hunter, a videographer, “aspiring actress and screenwriter living in Beverly Hills”).

John Edwards & Rielle Hunter

To the chagrin of many of these women, these lustful connections rarely last past the first news story published (Gingrich is an exception).

Either way the “could” goes: it’s about power – having, abusing, and being seduced by it. And this is why these ill-conceived attractions have the potential to devolve into sexual harassment (situations involving either a “quid pro quo” or “hostile environment”) in the workplace.

What makes it even worse for the women involved in these “power plays” is that they not only have to endure detailed investigations into their past, ridicule about their appearance, and speculation about their character, but their actions are denounced, while the man’s behavior is defended or excused by his fellow partisans – including women. During Clinton’s scandals, Democratic women, including Gloria Steinem, stood with him.

Throughout Edwards’s extramarital affair, Democratic aides and donors covered for him, so as not to undermine his presidential run.

Newt and Marianne Gingrich, 1995 (Esquire).

Although Gingrich’s extramarital affairs were not revealed until after he was out of office, when he began considering a presidential run, Jerry Falwell, supported him. So far with Cain, Republican women, including Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, have continued backing him.

Beyond this, Clinton’s poll numbers famously rose and Cain’s poll numbers have only just begun to register some concern. If the men hold their ground, then the women lose all the way around. If it’s not their job (like Lewinsky) or the man (as Hunter did), then it’s their reputation and the support of their fellow partisans. Then again, Eve ate the apple and Pandora opened the box; ever since, woman has been man’s undoing. Still, as a woman, it is painful to watch the partisan scapegoating and the societal shaming of these women.

Lest one click away from this page, assuming that I believe that women are morally above scandal, let me correct that impression. Women in politics do have abuse of power scandals. The difference is that the scandals involving women don’t tend to involve sexual misconduct; instead they tend to involve the misuse of funds or improper influence.

This means the scandals involving women tend not to be covered as extensively by the media, even though some may view these violations – because they are public abuses rather than private ones – as worse. For instance, Representative Laura Richardson is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee. Representative Maxine Waters denied the findings of a House Ethics Committee investigation. There are also charges swirling around former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Prior to retiring, Representative Jane Harman came under scrutiny.

There are two other reasons why women politicians aren’t often embroiled in scandals.

First, women are not in political office in large enough numbers to have as many scandals as men (more men in politics = more men with scandals in politics).

Second, the politicians who usually end up with scandals are those who are the most powerful and women in politics rarely hold positions of power. It is notable that Waters had both seniority and power on the House Banking Committee, while Harman was known for her expertise and connections in foreign affairs, and there has never been a woman as powerful in American politics as Speaker Pelosi.

The more powerful one is the more others want to tempt you to engage in wrongdoing by offering favors (from tickets to sporting events to lavish vacations to free rides on private jets). And the more powerful one is the more others (one’s opponents and some journalists) are looking – hoping to find – wrongdoing. As Lord Acton famously explained, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The problem for women is that they tend to be at the center of men’s sexual misconduct scandals, but men are rarely blamed for women’s misdeeds in office, even when some (see Waters or more famously, former Representative Enid Waldholtz Greene) were involved.

Even when the issue is scandal, it’s still about equality, fairness, and parity for women in politics.

"#Occupy Movement Is Unsafe for Women: Attacks and Threats ..." (click image for more)

In most locations, protesters have set up camps where protesters have stayed.

Unfortunately, the environment of some of these camps has become unsafe for women.

The “Occupy Wall Street” protest in New York City has become a setting where violence, rapes and sexual harassment has occurred.

Beyond this, last week, three men threatened to kill a young woman for desiring to report an assault to the cops:

Three young punks threatened to kill a 24-year-old Occupy Wall Street protester for pressing charges over an assault at the group’s Zuccotti Park encampment, police said.

“You got our friend arrested. We’re gonna kill you! Watch your back!” the trio warned the young woman on Monday – two days after her complaint led to the arrest of Garfield Leslie, police said Tuesday.

Leslie, 19, of Brooklyn, had offered to sell the woman drugs at the downtown sit-in, police said.

When she declined that offer and his romantic advances, he punched her in the face and then dished out more blows to a friend who had come to her defense, police said.

A kitchen worker at this protest has been arrested for groping a female occupier and is a suspect of rape as well. Things have gotten so troublesome that women have set up female only tents to help prevent further problems of sexual harassment and assault, as the New York Post reports:

It’s a safe house from the sex fiends.

Zuccotti Park has become so overrun by sexual predators attacking women in the night that organizers felt compelled to set up a female-only sleeping tent yesterday to keep the sickos away.

The large, metal-framed “safety tent” — which will be guarded by an all-female patrol — can accommodate as many as 18 people and will be used during the day for women-only meetings, said Occupy Wall Street organizers.

[…]

The safety measure comes amid a terrifying spree of sexual assaults — including an alleged rape — in the Zuccotti Park camp.

Setting up “female only” tents is part of Occupy Wall Street’s attempt to handle sexual assaults internally. The New York Post also notes:

Most protesters have not been reporting all the incidents to police — instead preferring to settle things on their own.

The tent and its all-female security detail is the latest crime-fighting measure, and it is already garnering much interest.

Similar problems have arisen at “Occupy” movements throughout the country and the world. The Occupy Baltimore movement has a security committee as part of their movement’s structure.

Their literature notes that they indeed do not tolerate sexual violence, but they also explicitly discourage victims of such crimes to report it to the police. In Oakland, complaints of sexual harassment have been made at their protest.

At the Occupy Dallas protest, an alleged sexual assault of a 14 year old runaway girl has occurred. In Glasgow, Scotland, a 28 year old occupier was raped in mid-October.

This issue here is not the message of the protest. One of the beauties of America is the freedom of speech and the opportunity to petition for a redress of grievances. To express support or disagreement with such a movement is the right of every individual.

The issue is that the environment of some of these protests has become unsafe for women to express their viewpoints. In the reports of these sexual crimes, the perpetrator is not often identified as a fellow “occupier” or an unaffiliated individual who took advantage of female occupiers. However, the fact that some of these occupy movement locations have chosen to deal with these internally will drive women away from being involved and leave the perpetrators wrongfully unprosecuted.

The movement should foster a safe environment where women both feel safe to protest, but also safe to report to the authorities if they become a victim of a sexual crime. Women who align themselves with the “99%” should not have to fear becoming part of the 17% of women who have been a victim of rape.

The Daily Caller just offered an article stating that both “Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton could be Florida game-changers.” Meaning if the Republican nominee chooses Senator Rubio as a running mate, he or she gets within spitting distance of taking the all important swing state of Florida in the 2012 election, along with her 27 electoral votes. The same is said of Secretary Hillary Clinton replacing Vice President Biden on the Democratic ticket…:

“I was amazed at not only how much she moves the tickets,” Paleologos [director of Suffolk’s political research center] said of Clinton’s potential to galvanize Florida’s Democrats.

“It’s like she straps the Democratic ticket on her back.”

Um. No kidding. There’s a lot that Hillary could have strapped on her back as President, that’s for sure. But Vice President? Forget it. Hillary has said about three hundred times that she will not replace Joe Biden on the ticket – nor should she. She is worthy of the top slot. Period.

I am sick to the nth power of having a multitude of professional pontificators muse about how Hillary can shore up the ticket, rescuing Obama from his sagging poll numbers and increasingly unpopular policies.

Why is that her job?

What does this say about women: They are not fit to hold the top office but are to be “used” in service, as scullery maids to help the man look better. She is only there to help him. To fix him. To bolster him. We’ll “use” her as we see fit.

This article is also particularly hilarious in its sexism by stating that:

Clinton is especially popular among young and Hispanic voters, and would allow Obama to break new ground by electing the first female vice president, he said.

So Obama is breaking new ground? How about the country breaking new ground by electing a qualified woman chief executive? Not a ceremonial second in command.

President Obama is not electing anyone. That is the job of the American people. Isn’t it interesting that this missive attempts to make an equal into someone subservient to Obama once again. Also a favorite pastime of the Obama WH boyz club, apparently.

The only new ground I saw broken when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were vying for the Democratic nomination in 2008 was that misogyny was once again made cool. In newsrooms. In social media. On the street. The more qualified and stronger candidate was excoriated in favor of a less experienced, less knowledgeable, younger male.

What a victory. Not what I would call progress.

Granted, there have been twice as many articles of late from the Chicago Tribune to the New York Times to the Huffington Post, suggesting President Obama step aside in favor of Hillary Clinton next year, letting her run for President as he retires from office. Not something she would do either.

We have also seen a conspicuous amount of reporting lately discussing Secretary Clinton’s accomplishments and leadership at the State Department, and her smarts in understanding that growing our economy is a matter of national security and the way to rebuild our stature as the first global power. Even prior detractors like Leslie Gelb have something nice to say. She graces TIME magazine’s cover as they offer a glowing story. Newsweek did the same not long ago.

Hmmm. What gives? Why now? Especially since the woman endured a near press blackout her first couple of years as Secretary of State.

I still hold out the thinnest reed of hope that she will run in 2016. But the last thing we need is a bunch of professional spit-ballers looking to make news by dragging her name up every five minutes as the one capable of saving the ticket in 2012.

It is still the President who sets the agenda and has the power. How much power or influence does VP Biden have? Aside from his “rhetorical flourishes”?

Here’s a message to big media:

You had your opportunity to trumpet Hillary’s abilities in 2008. You blew it.

Don’t ask the woman to save you now.